"Some who are progressives, they feel that this bill doesn't go far enough. There are others who say why didn't we get a public option? I've fought for a public option, but this bill will do many good things for so many people."

"Some on the right think this bill goes too far. They want to stop it. To them I say, you have a lack of understanding of the problems in America today . . . I say to those people, who want this stopped, they need to read our mail for a little while."

"At 1 p.m. today you will all have a detailed briefing from our staffs."

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) at the same presser:

"Our bill is fully paid for and it will reduce the national debt."

Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Connt.):

You need a team captain, who brings everyone together. We've been truly blessed to have Harry Reid as our leader.

We stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes quality health care a right.

Forget worrying about his colleagues, he should start worrying about his constituents that he was hired to represent. This monstrosity of a bill will cause physicians to retire as more people are added to the insured/underinsured rolls, pass the cost down the road to future generations, cause taxes to go up immediately, pave the way for single payer government insurance, longer waits, less coverage, bureaucratic presence in the doctor's office beyond what it is now, failure to cover tort reform, and failure to request identification from illegal aliens who will be the beneficiaries of de facto amnesty with access to the health system.

Regarding abortion funds, if he thinks that the feds won't be paying for abortions one way or another he is mistaken or delusional. Either way, I hope his constituents put him on the street with the rest of the irresponsible politicians who ignore the public.

Jayne Cobb-Certainly the CBO score might show a tangled mess of "savings" on the assumption the cuts to Medicare really occur, and the taxes raised by taxing "others" to pay for it can kick in soon enough to cover the billion (trillions) of dollars in cost.

How this secret monstrosity will strangle the rest of our teetering economy will be casually ignored.

"In effect, the onerous obligations under the Reid Bill would convert private health insurance companies into virtual public utilities. This action is not only a source of real anxiety but also a decision of constitutional proportions, for it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return on the massive amounts of capital that they have already invested in building out their businesses."

"The bill includes permissive language on government-funded abortion."

Medicaid: "The bill imposes massive burdens on states that are already struggling under the weight of the cost of Medicaid. At the same time, however, it gives special sweetheart deals to a select few states. Interestingly enough, two states that stand out are Nebraska and Vermont." This means that taxpayers elsewhere around the country end up "paying more so that Nebraska and Vermont can get a special deal."

"A bill that was sold as helping a major problem in our nation actually makes the problem worse."

"If this was a good bill with bipartisan support, they would not be trying to pass this the weekend before Christmas and in the middle of the night."

it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return

First, does this constitutional entitlement apply to my 401K?

But second, There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. -- Robert Anson Heinlein

"I'm here with a message for the American people . . . This is not renaming a post office. Make no mistake, this bill will reshape our nation and our lives . . . [Democrats are] counting on the American people being preoccupied with Christmas and not paying much attention to what they're doing."

I assume everyone commenting con here has called their Senators' offices first, to urge them to vote "no"? I have. I hope my senators regard their vote as a last-ditch attempt to save their incumbency, but I don't think they do. They give every sign of becoming an epic fail. Any one who votes for this has lost my vote, and more important, my contributions, now and forever.

It does not mean that the government and the courts are charged with the duty of preventing businesses from succeeding, shutting them down, or picking winners and losers, much less destroying the economy.

Statement: "First, the health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 - in fact it is a substantial net tax cut for American families."

Fact: In 2019, six years after this bill takes effect, the excise tax will affect one in five taxpayers making $50-$75,000 per year. The average tax impact on people in this income bracket will rise to $1,100 in 2019. Overall, more than 24 million taxpayers (or "tax units") will be affected by 2019.(1)

The CBO found that the tax would impact 19% of all employees with health insurance by 2016.

So Ben Nelson, the old style DemonRat, is just another corrupt little man who needs easy money. Surprise, surprise. IMO a better method of political power is to let every Senator auction off his vote on E-Bay. That would be much more democratic.

Its strange to watch one party deliberately commit political suicide. This will be like the porkulus bill on steroids and every misstep and problem healthcare has along the way will be blamed on the democrats till the cows come home. Great job, Obamy!

There's not much point in complaining about Ben Nelson or Democrats or parliamentary tactics and so on. Both sides do roughly the same thing when they are in power, though I do think the Democrats have an overall track record of greater corruption in terms of election fraud - their progressive component seems to feel that anything goes.

I see the whole thing as confirmation of this old truth:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

The Dems just seem to be a little stupider or more corrupt or something and are the party that more wholeheartedly votes their constituents more benefits from the treasury. But some party was going to do it, and from FDR or even Wilson onward it's all been tending towards this, which WILL end in economic collapse, poverty, and eventual revolution.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

It seems that rational humans would see that collapse and dictatorship is the end result, and choose to avoid that path. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

The CBO is saying:It will reduce the federal deficit. Then it says this:"The nearly $900 billion bill would be paid for by $483 billion in cuts to Medicare and other federal health programs, as well as tax increases."

One thing that has come from this is that the idea that there is such a thing as a moderate or blue dog Democrat has been ended. It doesn't matter the name or the place that the Dem comes from, they are all the same; Warner, Bachus, Nelson, Shuler, Pelosi, Reid. They are all equally left. Some just lie about it better.

Don't despair. I guarantee the bill will be repealed and the American people will get behind a push towards making Congress part-time legislators. Why do I say that? Because they never really fix anything so WTF do we need them for?

Has no one considered the possibility that Nelson has "grown" in office? There'll be a few op-eds in tomorrow's papers praising Nelson's growth in office. They'll probably even manage to find a rancher in western Neb who will lean on a fence, squint at the camera and assert that 'ole Ben' never forgot his routes, whilst pocketing a fat agricultural subsidy payment.

jayne_cobb and Paul Zrimsek are examples of what's wrong with American politics. There wasn't much actual debate in previous years, and there's almost none now. Instead, the MSM constantly misleads, pundits and media figures basically just put on a show, and right and left bloggers do the same (hoping one day to rise to the level of a Beck or an Olbermann). I hesitate to call people like jayne_cobb and Paul Zrimsek braindead, because they are able to type. I hesitate to use other terms because I don't want to degrade those who have mental disabilities.

In any case, their mindsets (loosely speaking) are toxic to democracy. They appreciate the current situation rather than trying to change it. (It's also a logical fallacy to make me responsible for doing everything; sometimes people have to help themselves.)

For the rest of you, here's a demonstration of my plan; 99.99% of Americans have probably never heard of her and I didn't get it on video. However, the point is that I set out to make an opponent look bad, and I did that. If she were well-known it would have had an impact on the wider discussion of that issue.

The fact that almost no one else is trying to do things like that should scare the crap out of you. We might as well be living in the USSR, with jayne_cobb and Paul Zrimsek in the role of tiny little bureaucrats protecting the current order.

I haven't particularly been paying attention to the health care "debate", since there's nothing I can do to influence the outcome anyway... but when did Lieberman get back on board with voting for the bill? Or did they manage to find enough Republican votes that they don't need him anymore?

I was in Nevada last week and saw anti-Reid signs everywhere. I like this one: "Anyone butt Reid." He is pretty much toast. Every Republican thinking of running is out-polling him.

This is basically his final F-U to the voters. That was Obama's pitch to Congress a while ago -- that the protesters will never vote for you anyway so you might as well vote for this thing and screw the people over in revenge. Absolute bastardy.

Wait until it warms up and people can have more tea parties and marches on Washington. It's gonna be huge and it's gonna get ugly. We'll have true bipartisanship: nutroot leftists, independents, and Republicans all agreeing that this bill sucks (but for different reasons).

One of the major political movements going on right now is that conservatives are rejecting republicans.

If that's the case, (and it sure goes against your script of an anticipated GOP resurgence in 2010), then... it sure took them long enough!

Maybe if they hadn't been so focused on political uniformity and movement politics for the last 16 years, they might have avoided coming to this point.

They are not a credible representative for taking on the status quo. Not long after they became the majority, they became their own status quo. And the first chance after that that they got at the oval office, they proved that corruption, cronyism and every other sort of political malfeasance they committed made the status quo that much more worthy of protection to them.

Sheer idiocy. This is a fucking GIFT to the insurance companies, who are guaranteed a forced customer base to whom they will sell shit policies that either charge too much for the benefits they provide or that have affordable premiums but require exorbitant deductibles and provide pitiful benefits.

The higher the deductible, the better. Pray for a 10 thousand annual deductible. 15 thousand for a family plan. Let employers fully deduct contributions to a savings account to fill in the gap. I'd say let wrkers do the same, but democrats have already proven themselves stupid enough to outlaw high deductble plans combned with HSAs. May those rats burn in hell for the destruction they cause. Bastards.

If that's the case, (and it sure goes against your script of an anticipated GOP resurgence in 2010)

The expected resurgence is due to independents and moderates rejecting the Democratic Party.

Plus, of course, conservative rejection of Republicans runs into the cold truth that Democratic control of government is a disaster for Americans. So even conservatives who loathe the Republican party -- and there are more of them every day -- are still likely to vote for the lesser evil.

Even if your "this is a windfall for the insurance companies" story was true, that would represent a triumph of corporatism, not capitalism. It is the antithesis of capitalism, as it abolishes the free market in favor of a government mandate.

Exactly which "disaster for Americans" has been caused by Democratic control of government?

If you read carefully, you'll note that I said Democratic control of government *was* the disaster for Americans.

I wouldn't say they've personally caused any disasters, at least not until this health care scheme passes. Although adding a trillion dollars to the debt for a "stimulus" package that appears to have actually worsened our economic situation is certainly a near-disaster, at the least. :)

So you admit you have no examples of any actual disasters that have actually happened now that the Democrats are in control. Instead, you just label their control as a disaster in itself. No reason. Just because. I don't like it! said Mr Smarty Pants Revenant!

Makes me wonder how disastrous you found the near collapse of our economy under Bush in October '08. Apparently that's an example of the kind of wise government management that Americans should strive to recreate because, you know, it wasn't a bunch of Democrats that made it happen. Pity about the increased debt at the time and all but, hey, no Democrats in charge of that. Which is what matters.

The best thing about Republicans is that when they disastrously fuck things up, they're doing so as Republicans. See, because they're not Democrats, it's not a problem! What a brilliant solution!

Try reading some John Maynard Keynes when you get a chance. It would be a lovely tonic to your backward embrace of mercantilism, or barter and trade, or whatever primitive understanding of antiquated hocus pocus economics you're trying to reinvigorate here.

Instead, you just label their control as a disaster in itself. No reason.

Well, you are welcome to think there is "no reason" to consider the last three years of Democratic Congressional domination a disaster. But it would appear that more and more voters have found reasons. :)

Even if your "this is a windfall for the insurance companies" story was true, that would represent a triumph of corporatism, not capitalism. It is the antithesis of capitalism, as it abolishes the free market in favor of a government mandate.

It's really quite interesting. Every time part of the left compromises and tries to create a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, they wind up creating the same thing that disillusioned Italian Marxists did back just after WWI. Yet they never seem to actually notice that they just keep re-inventing the same economic system as the founders of fascism.

No you moron, the triumph of capitalism would be the natural outgrowth of unhindered commerce. This is nothing more than government sanctioned wealth redistribution as a function of corporate welfare. Guess where all the money will flow back to? Congress. These fuckers are going to pass a bill that enriches themselves, government mandate.

@Revenant: Maybe you should READ that article on corporatism. It has nothing to do with corporations as we use the word today. It means something like the state treating all farmers as a bloc, or all Catholics as a bloc, something like the Estates of feudalism.

@Robert Cook: Government coercing insurance companies to do the unprofitable, and coercing taxpayers to give the insurance companies money, fails to meet the definition of even the Marxist caricature of capitalism.

This is fascism plain and simple--forcing citizens to patronize private companies, which in turn are shaken down. "Protection" in the Mafia sense.

I don't know why leftists think that people with money are more to be feared than people with guns.

@fls: If you read "Life-line" and used the quote in that context, you are a liar.

In "Life-line" Dr. Pinero invents a machine that made life insurance obsolete by predicting exactly when a given person will die. The insurance companies sue to force him out of business--they want "fair trade", not "free trade". That is the context of your quote.

Either you cribbed it off a website or you a liar. Heinlein would tunr over in his grave at the thought of his words being used to justify the government forcing people to buy insurance and insurance companies being forced to provide it.

If you were writing "Life-line", the government would force insurance companies to provide full coverage and benefits to people who bought insurance the day before Dr Pinero told them they were to die, and your narrator would applaud and castigate the life insurance companies for their greed.

It's a disgusting and willfull inversion of what Heinlein was trying to say.

Maybe you should READ that article on corporatism. It has nothing to do with corporations as we use the word today.

I never said it did.

It means something like the state treating all farmers as a bloc

... and all health care providers as a bloc, and all insurers as a bloc, and all consumers as a bloc...

For example, corporatism required factory owners to collude, under government supervision, to provide products meeting certain criteria, made by producers making a set wage, for uniform prices. Substitute "insurance companies" for "factory owners" and you've got the Democrats' plan.

Makes me wonder how disastrous you found the near collapse of our economy under Bush in October '08. Apparently that's an example of the kind of wise government management that Americans should strive to recreate because, you know, it wasn't a bunch of Democrats that made it happen

Community Re-Investment Act was the cause of the economic crash. Libtards forced banks to give risky loans to inner city folks [blacks]. Libtards threatened banks with false charges of racism if they didn't, promising to place them on a dnp list so they couldn't expand against their competiters.

Bush tried twice to fix this and Fannie/Freddie. Was stopped by Dems both times.

"This is nothing more than government sanctioned wealth redistribution as a function of corporate welfare."

And this is capitalism as practiced in the U.S.A., bub. The corporate swine who run things call the shots, the Congresspeople plead "How high?" in anticipation of the orders to "Jump!", (while sticking their hands out for their graft payments), and the electorate gets the shaft.

Oh, this won't be unprofitable for the insurance companies, no sir, not at all. This will provide them with millions more, if not billions, in revenue. Why do you think the insurance companies have been claiming to be in favor of "health reform"(sic)?

Hahahaha! Shit, the fucking democrats aren't dominating now, when they've got control of both houses and the White House, much less while Bully Boy was in office! The Republicans, discredited for their disastrous 8 year complete fucking of the country still determine the parameters of debate and what will be deemed "acceptable." The dems don't want to "offend" their colleagues across the aisle, so we see the dems, including the O Man, shaping policy they think will be welcomed by the shits in elephant suits, and the crimes of the last administration are not just overlooked but continued with the new boss.

"Even if your 'this is a windfall for the insurance companies' story was true, that would represent a triumph of corporatism, not capitalism. It is the antithesis of capitalism, as it abolishes the free market in favor of a government mandate."

See my previous comments. This is American capitalism, and so it has been for decades.

The CBO assessment of the bill tells the appalling story. We are going to raise taxes by half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, increase spending by more than a trillion dollars, cut Medicare by $470 billion but use that money to fund a new entitlement rather than to fix Medicare itself, bend the health care cost curve up rather than down, insert layers of bureaucracy between doctors and patients, and compel and subsidize universal participation in a failed system of health insurance rather than reform or improve it.

Well, you are welcome to think there is "no reason" to consider the last three years of Democratic Congressional domination a disaster. But it would appear that more and more voters have found reasons. :)

And they are...?

Which bill did Democrats pass in the last three years that was a disaster for America?

Of course, you are welcome to still that admit you can't list any, while dispensing with nothing more than mysterious and vague gainsaying, and cute, smirky smiley faces while alluding to the electorate. But that's because you love right-wing populism more than you do your country.

The Community Reinvestment Act dates back to 1977. In my book, that gives the Bush administration eight years to address it and a Republican congress ten years to address it. And, in fact, that's what they did - largely for the worse - with legislative changes in 1999 and regulatory changes in 2005 and 2007. But of course, because the crash still happened, you want to blame it on the Democrats and reverse-racism because that script plays better to your base.

Nevermind the difference between racism and a bad investment, as if some asshole denying a loan to a black applicant just because he thinks blacks are inherently less credit worthy, is acting in anyone's economic best interests.

So go on, confuse the issue, blame it on the blacks, and who knows, maybe the Jews, and let Bush and Phil Gramm and the rest of those idiots off the hook entirely. Maybe you can recruit Cedarford to help you write your analysis.

Hanna -- In "Life-Line" it was possible to bankrupt the insurance companies by refraining from buying insurance till your impending death, because of a new invention. Insurance companies were prepared to go to any lengths to preserve their income stream, including assassinating the inventor and destroying the invention. It was a cautionary tale of how there are no checks, legal or moral, on corporate greed.

I am greedy for not wanting the government, and one party in particular, to tax and steel, beyond what is acceptable and fair, what is mine.

You certainly are greedy for believing that your definition of "acceptable and fair" should overrule one held to by the vast majority of the electorate which is, justifiably, morally outraged at the plight of the uninsured and "the uninsurable".

I am greedy for not wanting to be on the public dole.

Go ahead and get off it. I didn't realize you were on it. I thought conservatives refer to the effort to do so as "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps", in fact, and considered people in a position to be on it as personal examples of moral failure. Or do conservatives have such a sense of impotence that they believe the government has the power to turn people into moral failures?

I am materialistic for not providing approval and applause to a government that is systematically destroying the private sector to pay for government largess, and unsustainable delusions.

Perhaps then you are just delusional to deny that the bill will cut the deficit, and more than pay for itself. And perhaps you are just delusional to forget the fact that the most recent version contained no public option - as fiscally superior (and more favorable to small businesses and the private sector) as that option would have been. But if that's what it takes for you to stay truer to a particular ideology than to reality, I suppose, maybe you should go with it.

What you are displaying is a capricious disregard for any balance between the private sector and government "largesse", and just arbitrarily pretending that one is eternally in conflict with and opposed to the interests of the other. It doesn't even occur to you that the interests of the private sector have been destroyed by the status quo.

In so doing, you have put American business (a big part of that vaunted "private sector") at a competitive disadvantage. That's hardly an argument in favor of preserving the private sector -- at least, not if the American economy's private sector is really your concern.

I am truly sorry I voted for this *&^% and I will do everything in my power to make sure he never holds office in NE again. Any bets as to weather Senator Nelson was promised a cabinet post or some other high level govt. job for selling out the lives of the unborn? FURIOUS IN NEBRASKA!!!!